For people looking for life or funeral cover, the appeal of a comparison service is obvious: one place to see the market, rather than a string of calls, websites and product disclosure statements.
Choosi operates such a service. Between 1 July 2019 and 2 June 2025, Choosi marketed its service through its website, television advertisements, advertorials and Facebook advertising. Its television advertisements ran more than 300,000 times, with a cumulative audience exceeding one billion, while the advertorials ran at least 397 times to a cumulative audience above 38 million.
The marketing repeatedly presented Choosi as a way to compare, choose and apply for insurance. One website statement said it helped people compare the benefits and prices of “a range of products from leading insurers”. Another said Choosi worked with “a range of popular insurance brands”.
It compared funeral insurance policies issued by Hannover Life Re of Australasia Ltd. For life insurance, it compared Hannover policies and one Woolworths Life Insurance policy issued by Swiss Re Life and Health Australia Ltd until 30 June 2023. From 1 July 2023, the life policies it compared were also issued only by Hannover.
Following complaints, ASIC investigated and then instituted breach proceedings in the Federal Court.
In the trial to determine liability, Justice Stewart Anderson found that an ordinary consumer could take it as a promise that Choosi itself was comparing policies from a meaningful range of insurers, not merely presenting different branded policies issued by the same insurer.
The presence of several brands did not absolve it. In the setting of a comparison service, the Court found that references to a range of brands conveyed a range of insurers. The value consumers were being offered was the breadth of the comparison, not simply a choice between labels.
Choosi argued that its website and advertising had to be read as a whole, including disclosures and the later telephone calls needed to complete an application. It also said consumers were assisted to compare, rather than Choosi itself doing the comparing.
The court rejected those answers. A comparison service is understood as doing the comparison work for the customer, even though the customer ultimately chooses. And the phone scripts did not clearly disclose that the comparison was confined to Hannover policies, apart from the limited Swiss Re period for life insurance.
More importantly, the court said the misleading impression had already done its work before the call. Advertising can contravene the law when it draws consumers into the “marketing web” through an erroneous assumption; a later qualification does not necessarily cure it.
Justice Anderson found that Choosi’s website and the television, advertorial and Facebook material conveyed the false comparison representation. That representation concerned both the quality and the claimed benefits of the financial service, and there was an actual probability that the public would be misled.
Because the commercial value being sold was a broad choice, disclosures, brand variety and later explanations did not rectify the deficiency of the service itself only surveying a narrow part of the market.
The court ruled the misleading conduct contravention of the ASIC Act had been made out. No penalty has yet been imposed as yet and the parties must now propose declarations and a timetable for the penalty phase.
Case citation: Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Choosi Pty Ltd, in the matter of Choosi Pty Ltd (liability) [2026] FCA 1196, Anderson J, 8 September 2026. Federal Court judgment.
